The paper "Does Flexible Working Promote and Reduce Discrimination for All Staff " is a great example of management coursework. In the recent past, multinational organisations have applied varied measures to manage global workforce diversity. One of the strategic measures through which organizations have sought to manage diversity and promote equality while reducing workforce discrimination is through flexible policies (Kersley et al, 2013). This essay offers a critical analysis of the role of flexible policies application as a means of addressing workforce diversity discrimination. On one hand, it explores how flexible working house use reduce discrimination through supporting the disabled employees, creating gender balance, and cultural sensitivity respectively.
On the other hand, it evaluates how the use of flexible working hours creating discrimination through the use of different performance levels and unequal access to ret times respectively. How Flexible Working Promote Employee Discrimination This section explores the various avenues through which the use of flexible working policies increases employee discrimination. The key evaluated aspects are the use of different performance measures and unequal access to opportunities by the employees. Background One of the strategic measures under flexible working systems is the use of working from home alternatives.
This system includes allowing the employees to work form their respective homes. In this case, the employees can either work from home on a permanent basis or temporary basis. Through this approach, the system ensures that some of the employees operate from home at their own convenience. However, Scott and Byrd (2012) argued that the process faces the challenge of employee rivalry. In this case, the authors argued that through the use of the work from home systems, there emerges employee rivalry.
In this regard, a majority of the organisations offer their employment opportunities to work from home based on performance as a reward, and based on their needs. This results in rivalry. On one hand, some of the employees feel that through selecting some of the employees to work from home while the others work from the office is a discriminatory approach. In this case, the process defies the principles of equal treatment of employees. Employee Performance Evaluation Differences In order to evaluate employee performance levels, one of the critical conditions is that all the employees, evaluated under the same category, should be operating and working under the same working conditions.
The operations under the same working conditions ensure that the employees have the same share of resources and conditions to measure their performance. In this case, Dancaster (2014) noted that if employees operated under different conditions, the availability of resources and other hygienic conditions are bound to be different. This can be illustrated through a review of the Herzberg two factor theories. The theory held that existing organisational working conditions, resources availability and other aspects are a part of the hygienic factors impacting on employee performance. First, while as some organisational departments may allow their employees to work under flexible working hours, others do not.
As such, this means that it creates unfairness to employees working in the same organisation. Moreover, once some of the employees operate from home, while others operate and function from the office, a number of discrepancies emerge. Such discrepancies include the availability of resources. First, the employees working from the office are bound to have access to the vast organisational resources at their disposal.
On the other hand, the employee working from their homes have limited availability if the resources (Kelly et al, 2014). Although some of the organisations ensure the transmission and availability of the resources online, at times, technology failures could lead to breakdowns.
Scott, C. L., & Byrd, M. Y. (2012). Handbook of research on workforce diversity in a global society: Technologies and concepts. Hershey, PA: Business Science Reference.
Daniels, K., & Macdonald, L. (2005). Equality, diversity and discrimination: A student text. London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development.
Kirton, G., & Greene, A. M. (2015). The dynamics of managing diversity: A critical approach. New York: Routledge.
Kersley, B., Alpin, C., Forth, J., Bryson, A., Bewley, H., Dix, G., & Oxenbridge, S. (2013). Inside the workplace: findings from the 2004 Workplace Employment Relations Survey. London: Routledge.
Dancaster, L. (2014). Work-life balance and the legal right to request flexible working arrangements. South African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences, 9(2), 175-186.
Gatrell, C. J., Burnett, S. B., Cooper, C. L., & Sparrow, P. (2013). Work–Life Balance and Parenthood: A Comparative Review of Definitions, Equity and Enrichment*. International Journal of Management Reviews, 15(3), 300-316.
Kelly, E. L., Moen, P., Oakes, J. M., Fan, W., Okechukwu, C., Davis, K. D., ... & Mierzwa, F. (2014). Changing work and work-family conflict evidence from the work, family, and health network. American Sociological Review, 0003122414531435.
Christensen, K., & Schneider, B. (2015). Workplace flexibility: Realigning 20th-century jobs for a 21st-century workforce. Cornell University Press.
Jones, F., Burke, R. J., & Westman, M. (2013). Work-life balance: A psychological perspective. New York: Psychology Press.
Rodriguez-Munoz, A., Sanz-Vergel, A. I., Demerouti, E., & Bakker, A. B. (2014). Engaged at work and happy at home: A spillover–Crossover model.Journal of Happiness Studies, 15(2), 271-283.
Sonnentag, S. (2012). Psychological detachment from work during leisure time the benefits of mentally disengaging from work. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21(2), 114-118.
Morris, D., Morris, A., & Sigafoos, J. (2015). Adopting (in) equality in the UK: the Equality Act 2010 and its impact on charities. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 1-22.
Veale, D. (2012). The Department of Health and the Equality Act 2010. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 201(1), 75-75.
Bloom, N., Liang, J., Roberts, J., & Ying, Z. J. (2013). Does working from home work? Evidence from a Chinese experiment (No. w18871). National Bureau of Economic Research.
Hülsheger, U. R., Alberts, H. J., Feinholdt, A., & Lang, J. W. (2013). Benefits of mindfulness at work: the role of mindfulness in emotion regulation, emotional exhaustion, and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(2), 310.
Hamel, G., & Prahalad, C. K. (2013). Competing for the Future. Harvard: Harvard Business Press.
Fevre, R., Robinson, A., Lewis, D., & Jones, T. (2013). The ill-treatment of employees with disabilities in British workplaces. Work, Employment & Society, 27(2), 288-307.
Landsbergis, P. A., Grzywacz, J. G., & LaMontagne, A. D. (2014). Work organization, job insecurity, and occupational health disparities. American journal of industrial medicine, 57(5), 495-515.
Brescoll, V. L., Glass, J., & Sedlovskaya, A. (2013). Ask and Ye Shall Receive? The Dynamics of Employer‐Provided Flexible Work Options and the Need for Public Policy. Journal of Social Issues, 69(2), 367-388.
Mazanec, J. A., Crotts, J. C., Gursoy, D., & Lu, L. (2015). Homogeneity versus heterogeneity of cultural values: An item-response theoretical approach applying Hofstede's cultural dimensions in a single nation. Tourism Management, 48, 299-304.
Taras, V., Steel, P., & Kirkman, B. L. (2012). Improving national cultural indices using a longitudinal meta-analysis of Hofstede's dimensions. Journal of World Business, 47(3), 329-341.
Moran, R. T., Abramson, N. R., & Moran, S. V. (2014). Managing cultural differences. New York: Routledge.